(Far News Agency)

“Our region, South Asia and Central Asia is out of this loop (of economic progress) because of the conflict between India and Pakistan,” Gen Musharraf said at a seminar organized by the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India. Musharraf, who is in India to attend a two-day non-government forum, “India Today Conclave”, said economic progress benefits both India and Pakistan, so both the countries should resolve their disputes. “It has always been my belief for Pakistan to act as a trade and energy corridor. This will be realized if we resolve our disputes and start an era of harmony, peace and friendship,” he said. In an earlier speech here, Musharraf called on India and Pakistan to solve their dispute over Kashmir so as to pave way for peace and development in the region.

Here we have focussed on one of the very crucial issue and the very old problem of interpreting Jinnah by the two diverse school of thoughts.A regular contributor of PTH,Yasser Latif Hamdani, A lawyer by profession had a stance that Jinnah was a secular leader and he wished to etablished Pakistan as a secular and modern state.Here he face opposition from those who think Jinnah had promised to establish Pakistan as a lab for Islamic principles.

Here are some extracts from that debate regarding his article about ZA Bhutto where discussing bhutto and his action against Ahmadis,the role of Mullah in Pakistan politics he comes to the issue he loves to discuss the Jinnah’s vision…

Yasser : Pakistan was created as a result of the inability of the Congress
Party to recognize the legitimate secular concerns (such economic and
political safeguards) of the Muslim bourgeoisie represented by the
Muslim League. Instead of relying on secular and liberal Muslim
leaders like Jinnah, who had for much of his career been described as
the Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity by the Hindu leadership, the
Congress co-opted the Muslim religious clergy to prove its secular
credentials. Soon the Congress found itself out of sync with the
mass of Muslims. Since Muslims themselves were fragmented into
several sects and schools of thought, Jinnah and the Muslim League
kept theological and purely religious issues out of the main political
discourse. This allowed Jinnah to bring Sunnis, Shias, Ismailis,
Khojas and Ahmadis on one table despite major doctrinal differences
between these groups. It was for this reason that after Pakistan was
created, Jinnah extended his policy of keeping religious doctrine out
to state governance. To drive the point home, he included in his
cabinet a Hindu (Jogindranath Mandal) as a law minister and an Ahmadi
Muslim (Ch. Zafrullah Khan) as his foreign minister.
After 1947, the religious clergy that had opposed Jinnah and the
creation of Pakistan found itself like a fish out of a pond.
In the same article he writes

Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it. The need
of the hour is for Pakistan to revive the vision of Mahomed Ali Jinnah
i.e. of a modern secular democratic state where not just all Muslim
sects but also the Non-Muslim minorities can live in dignity and their
held high as equal citizens of Pakistan. As with the Pakistan
movement, the only way to realize Pakistan’s potential as the world’s
sole Muslim majority nuclear power is to keep religion strictly
separate from governance and administration. Otherwise we will
continue to be held hostage by an unthinking clergy manipulated by
Pakistan’s wretched and entrenched establishment.

While in the comments section the interactors reacted and a debate started

Cycle wala Banda : Millions of other Muslims who sacrificed all for Pakistan, for la ilaha illallah [pakistan ka matlab kiya, lest we forget]
What about Allama Iqbal, or Sir Syed? or the Ali brothers or Zafar Ali Khan?

Their aspirations don’t count?

Why unthinking clergy? What about unthinking secularists, for whom the sun rises out of Voltaire’s head.

As for the history of Ahmedi exclusion Raza, Sufi saint and scholar Hazrat Pir Mehr Ali Shah RA declared the Ahmedis non-muslim 100 years ago. Not a single Sufi of any order has disagreed with him since.

Yasser : If Mehr Ali Shah and others like him matter you should have asked them to make Pakistan instead of relying on a Qadiani lawyer like Zafrullah Khan to draft the Lahore resolution and an agnostic like Jinnah to lead the movement.

As for Sir Syed…read up on him. He was as opposed to exclusivist religio-fascists as Jinnah. In any event Sir Syed died in 1898 and Iqbal in 1938… so you don’t really have a point there.

As pakistan ka matlab kiya…the slogan itself was invented in the 1960s by some ulema and there is little chance of it being the main push of the Pakistan movement.

Muslims fighting for Pakistan did not believe it would be a theocracy or else they would have voted for the likes of Maududi etc. Muslims in those days believed Islam was compatible with equal rights, democracy and indeed what we today call secularism.

In other words there was no disparity between Islam and modernity to their eyes.

As for misrepresenting the Quaid, let me just say that the Quaid was liberal enough to have a Hindu as the law minister of Pakistan and Qadiani Ahmadi as the foreign minister. So much for misrepresenting him.

Jinnah made Pakistan and in Pakistan we shall follow his liberal democratic creed no matter how much it upsets the remnants of those who opposed Jinnah.

Ammar Qureshi : I agree with the main thrust of your article and the need for secular Pakistan and how the project got hijacked by religious elements. However, to call Mr. Jinnah an agnostic is really wrong. I think it should be beyond any doubt- that Mr. Jinnah was a Shia- as he converted from Ismaili branch to the mainstream Twelvers or Ithna-Ashari Shia Islam. It is well documented in Wolpert’s book that the conversion took place, when he wa a young man, under the influence of Sir Badruddin Tyabji- who also served as the head of Congress. Mr. Jinnah’s nikah documents of his marriage with Rutti Jinnah also show that he professed Shia faith. Raja Sahib of Mahmudabad- a known Shia- was his witness and the Nikah ceremony was performed by Shia mujtahid. Later Rutti was buried in Khoja Ithna Ashari Shia graveyard in Bombay. I think all these should be proof enough to which faith he belonged. How practising one is in some faith is a personal matter but in terms of issues that required fiqah or jurisprudence to be followed- it is very clear which fiqah he followed.

Raza Rumi : Yasser, thanks for contributing a brilliant piece for PTH – contested as it is, it does bring an alternative view of history that people are shy to acknowledge in contemporary Pakistan.

Having said that, I think plurality demands that we accept alternative points of view of all shades.

Whilst I fuly agree with your argument on Mr Jinnah and his secularism, we ought to realise that Jinnah alone did not represent all the shades of opinion within Indian Muslims. There were several voices and trends and movements that all claimed separateness – and eventually found themselves in Pakistan. This is why we have a complex situation..

And I think cycle wala banda was at best ironical about secularists as the latter are those of Mullahs – I don’t think that it was an “attack” per se. I would therefore call for an amity as we all need to co-exist within the parameters of Pakistani Constitution that above all protects our right of expression.

The Ahmadi issue is tricky – at a purely secular level, I think that state has no business to go ahead and declare anyone anything. But then it is also an emotional issue – and overtime has become such a complex thing to handle that the moment you talk for or against the Ahmaddiya community you are bound to raise a red flag.

Eteraz : In my eyes there are two kinds of Islamism that have plagued Pakistan — Supremacist and Machiavellian. Supremacist is when conservative and devout Muslims try to forcibly impose their version of Islam upon all other people i.e. Zia or JI. Machiavellian is when otherwise irreligious and secular minded people manipulate people’s romantic views of Islam in order to advance political control.

ZAB falls in the latter category. We like to pretend that he “capitulated” to the Islamists, when, in fact, he tried to center control for himself by occupying the people with Islamic issues. The Ahmadi amendment wasn’t the only Islamist thing he promulgated: The 1973 constitution made Islam the State religion. He hosted the Organization of Islamic Conference in Lahore. Promised an Islamic bomb…put Wahhabis like Zia in his military…

Cycle wala banda : As to your attacks on me I won’t bother to reply. Raza bhai has made some valid points about shades of opinion. Pakistan belongs to the Muslims of India, not to any one man. Secularists seem to think Pakistan the Quaid’s private property, and since he [allegedly] wanted a “Secular Pakistan”… they read a lot into a few [carefully selected] actions of the Quaid.This is fallacious thinking to my view. It’s a contradiction in terms anyway, to talk about a secular Pakistan. May as well have stayed in India then.
A few facts FYI however:-
Pakistan ka matlab kiya, la ilaha Ilallah was coined by Sialkoti poet, Asghar Sodai in 1944, in his immortal Tarana e Pakistan, which spread like wildfire amongst the Pakistan Movement rallies.
My late father, who took part in the Pakistan Movement, remembered it well, including at Quaid e Azam’s rallies.
As for the Quaid Mr. Jinnah, whatever his views earlier, he requested Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani, to raise the Pakistan flag at the very first time instead of himself;and in event of his death for Maulana Usmani to lead the funeral prayer; when asked at several rallies, in front of thousands of witnesses, the Quaid held up the Holy Qur’an and said this is the Constitution of Pakistan.
etc. etc.
The fact is that Quaid e Azam was one of the many Muslims who worked for Pakistan. Pakistan did not ‘belong to him’ that his giving a position to Zafarullah Khan be viewed as a symbolic act, any more than Quaid’s giving places of importance to Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani and Maulana Pir Jamaat Ali Shah [ameer e millat, remember?] etc.
As for whether saints like Hazrat Mehr Ali Shah RA matter, well all I can say is you view everything in a secular paradigm. But for us the prayers of the Saints are everything, the ‘zahiri asbab’ materialize later.
For no less a personage than Allama Iqbal, Hazrat Mehr Ali Shah was THE authority on religion in his later life. See his published correspondence.
Finally with regards to Sir Syed & Islam, not only have I read up ‘on him’ but coming from a family of Aligarians who read the monthly Tehzeeb regularly, I’m quite aware of the Reformist but still Islamic thrust of his thinking.
If you could be more specific as to which of his texts you are referring to, I’d be happy to discuss the matter with you. I have access to all 9 volumes of Sir Syed’s collected works.
Yasser : I am not aware of Shabbir Ahmad Usmani raising the flag … but eve if that were true (which probably isn’t) could you tell me what Usmani’s portfolio was in Jinnah’s cabinet? I will enlighten you: Nothing.
By the way… who was Jinnah’s law minister? Oh he was a Hindu – Jogindranath Mandal… and no he had no knowledge of Sharia law… a rather ironic fact if Pakistan was going to be an Islamic state eh?
As for Zafrullah Khan… not only was he chosen to be Pakistan’s first foreign minister but Pakistan’s lawyer in front of the boundary commission. Do you understand the implications of that?
PS: and talking about symbolic gestures… what does Jinnah’s choice of a Hindu (Jaggannath Azad) to write the first national anthem mean (in addition to his appointment of a Hindu as the law minister and his invitation to Khushwant Singh to be one of the judges of the Lahore High Court)
http://www.thehindu.com/2005/06/19/stories/2005061907400100.htm
Yasser : Dear Raza. The reason I don’t accept this argument of other points of view within the great push for Pakistan… is simply because as a student of history, I am forced to conclude that the only contribution anyone else had to the Pakistan movement other than Jinnah was voting en masse for the Muslim League thereby giving Jinnah the vote he needed. This I say very responsibly despite the fact that my own great grandfather was honored with a gold medal posthmously for his “participation” in the Pakistan movement.
The masses voted for Jinnah because they trusted his judgement completely. They always knew that he was westernized and was accused of not knowing the basics of Islam. But they voted for him as one… he was their lawyer, their leader… their Quaid-e-Azam. If there was any other vision than that of Jinnah’s… there were great Islamic scholars … all lined up against him… Madani, Maududi, Azad … they could have voted for them. But they didn’t.
Jinnah is – in my personal view- larger than the sum total of Pakistan and Pakistan movement. This is not an emotional view but a view based on careful consideration of historical evidence.
GreenSufi : And Hazrat Muhammad PBUH is bigger than the sum total of all the Jinnahs who could ever exist. This is the view of the Qur’an as well as ‘my personal view.’ Oh and that of a few million subcontinental muslims.So Maulana Usmani, Pir Jama’at Ali Shah, Shah Muhamad Salman Phulwari, Khwaja Taunsavi, Muhammad Ameen al-Hasanat of Mani Sharif, Allama Pir Ghulam Muhyuddin of Golra Sharif, Mufti-e Azam Hind Mazharullah Dehlvi, Faqir Nur Muhammad Sarwari, Maulana Pir Muhammad Shah of Bhera Sharif, Maulana Sayyid Mazhar Gillani Peshawari, Maulana Seyyid Muhammad Zauqi Shah Chishti Sabri Ajmeri, Khwaja Muhammad Qamar of Siyal Sharif, Maulana Abdul Qayyum Khan Kanpuri, Maulana Abdus Sattar Khan Niazi, Pir AbdurRahman Sakharvi, Pir AbdulLatif Zakori Sharif, Maulana Shaykh Dr. Abdul Hayy Arifi, Maulana Abdul Ghafoor Khan Hazarvi, Maulana Hazrat Mohani, Maulana Abdul Qadir Qasuri, Maulana Abdul Quddus Bihari, KHwaja Hasan Nizami, Allama Abdul Quddus Hasmi Makhdumpuri, Hakeem ul Ummat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Maulana Zafar Ahmed Usmani, Qazi Hakeem Haydari Alori, Maulana Akram Khan Hakimpuri, Allama Syed Muhammad Qadri, Maulana Abdul Hamid Badyuni, Ghazali-e-Zaman Allama Ahmed Saeed Kazmi etc etc etc were not great Islamic scholars?
I don’t quite think you’re qualified to make such statements Yasser sahib.
Whether it pleases some or not, I think most of us would rather follow the Holy Prophet PBUH’s advice on how to run a country.
Yasser : Green Sufi sb,fair enough,novel way of arguing.Quoting relative unknowns… for each of these I can name 10 Ismailis, Ahmadis and even Christians who paricipated in the Pakistan movement.
As for your point about the Holy Prophet (PBUH)… I am sure the Holy Prophet (PBUH) would not approve of all that is done in his name.
Could you tell me what the Holy Prophet (PBUH) said about Eifai-ahed ? The keeping of promises? On that ground alone the entire “declare Ahmadis kafir” movement comes crashing down.
On your list..the only three people I can see as having any real importance are:
Pir of Manki
Hasrat Mohani (who was a political activist and not a Mullah per se)
And Ashraf Ali Thanvi, a great scholar who had no real contribution to the Pakistan movement.

Yasser : Ammar Ali Qureshi sb,Jinnah was a shia no doubt … but that has to do more with cultural affiliation than anything else. How strong was his faith in God only he can tell.
GreenSufi : Betraying your ignorance here Yasser.
Most of them are famous, nay, legendary scholars & saints! Have you honestly never heard of Allama Ahmed Saeed Kazmi, Shabbir Usmani etc?
There are many other prominent Ulema I could name, but your ‘novel argument’ would be to say they are not prominent at all. What can I say. Dana ra ishara kafi.
Obviously you are unfamiliar with Traditional religious circles, deobandi or barelvi.
All I can say is that it seems you are in your twenties and are a product of English medium schools, nor have access to most of the Urdu literature on the freedom movement. As such you haven’t made an unbiased study of the Movement and the events leading up to it, such as the Khilafat Movement etc., which have a bearing on the Pakistan Movement itself. Finally as to the Holy Prophet PBUH…. he said a lot of things. Are you willing to listen? For instance, you talk of separation of religion, its’ relegation to the private sphere, away from Government, Law, Politics, Commerce, etc.
However the Prophet came to forbid any such separation of State & Scripture. His whole message was that the Sharia is binding on all of us including the ruler & the state. The Qur’an gives guidelines and rules in many areas of life. Ttrue enough the Qur’an does not give a specific rule in every area, but where it does we are bound to follow it, and where it gives a guideline we are bound to go by that guideline too.
As for the hackneyed argument about the 73 sects & ‘which Sharia?’, perhaps you have heard of the ‘baees nuqaat’ [22 points] agreed upon by the Ulema of ALL SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT under the chairmanship of Allama Syed Suleman Nadvi on 24th January 1951? Which the secularists promptly thwarted?
The fact is, Mr. Latif, that the same English speaking, whiskey-swilling, grammar-school educated secularized Westernized Elite have dominated this country since its inception. And by God, its about time this changed. And inshaAllah it will change. As for Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, it is he who deputed the Usmanis [Shabbir & Zafar] to the Pakistan Resolution in 1940, 3 years before his death, with a letter to Liaquat Ali Khan, reiterating he would have made a speech but for his ill health. This letter is an important text of the Freedom movement.And Maulana Hasrat Mohani was a pukka ba-shara’ punj-waqta namazi Molvi, and a Sufi of the Qadri order and a murid of the Firangi Mahalli Ulema. Ever heard of them? Many members of this prominent family of Ulema were also involved in the Pakistan movement.
Gustakh : I say the sooner we ship these Secularists off to India the better it will be.
Aik Kishti tayyar karo aur uss me Mubarak Ali, Hasan Nisar, Hoodbhoy, Asma Jehangir & Cowasjee ki qayadat me bhej do. Raste me Qayadat hi dubo de gi.
Raza Rumi : Green Sufi Sb,Thanks for adding information and other perspectives to the discussion here.However, let me state that the personal comments about the author, YLH, at best are unwarranted. It is not fair to assume certain things about a person if you do not agree with his viewpoint. Furthermore, the lables of grammar school, whiskey are quite respectfully not in line with your stature and above all the title you hold – Sufis have been known for tolerance, respect for fellow human beings and understanding,this was just a random thought.
Yasser : I meant prominent with respect to the Pakistan Movement. The three names I pointed out were in some form or the other associated with the Pakistan movement.The rest of them were not in any way prominent vis a vis the Pakistan movement. In my view- and this is my view which no one is obligated to accept- Jinnah was greater than the sum total of all these “great scholars” combined multiplied into 100.
None of these great scholars would have gotten elected to the local municipal board, let alone command the complete and total respect of 100 million Muslims and several million Non-Muslims that Jinnah did.
As for Hasrat Mohani (the only worthwhile name on your list really)… he was a pukka communist who believed in a secular order and apart from the Muslim League, he was also the founding member of the Communist Party of India. But in any event Hasrat Mohani chose to stay on in India to fight for the rights of Muslim minorities and as such should be viewed in that light- a great Indian Muslim leader.
GreenSufi : Sure Raza bhai, while comments about Hazrat Mehr Ali Shah RA & the other great scholar-saints of the subcontinent whose prayers got us Pakistan, and whose existence guarantees our Faith & our hereafter, are perfectly fine.You are entitled to your tolerant view. We all have things we wish to tolerate and what we don’t tolerate. And these lists show where we are. “A man is with who he loves” as the Prophet PBUH said.
On the subject of Sufi tolerance, yes, Sufis are kind to sinners, but they hate the sin for sure. To think Sufis are cool with our whiskey-drinking elite oppressors is a travesty of the sulah-e-kull [peace to all], and a misunderstanding of it.
As Sultan ul Arifeen Hazrat Bayazid Bistami RA clarified, “He who does not hate what the Almighty God & His Prophet PBUH hate, is himself despicable and a pretender to Sufism.”
Our Sufism is Islamic Sufism and nothing more or less.
There are 2 comments here:- one about the secular elite who have oppressed our masses. They are necessarily harsh.
Finally as to the ‘unwarranted assumptions’ about Yasser? I have to conclude from his post & comments that since he is a young man from an English speaking background he hasn’t yet had an opportunity to study the Urdu literature on the Pakistan Movement. Frankly without that it is difficult.
The only other ‘unwarranted assumption’ about Yasser is that he is unfamiliar with religious circles deobandi or barelvi. Now tell me Raza, when he claims that the [list of] Ulema who participated in the Pakistan Movement [in comment no. 14] are ‘relative unknowns’, how unwarranted is my assumption???
Yasser : I have read much more of the Urdu literature on the Pakistan movement than you can imagine.However, barring Sibte-Hassan and Daniyal Latifi and some other writers of the left wing within the Muslim League , I have found most of that literature to be hogwash… especially that which has come off the ink of religious divines. Your ignorance about simple facts is appalling. So I suggest you refrain from making assumptions about me and invest in educating yourself in the history of the Pakistan movement.
Ammar : Yasser sb,I do not think that Jinnah’s being a shia had anything to do with cultural affilitation… if it had anything to do with cultural affiliation- he could have converted to mainstream Sunni Islam from being an ismaili… it had to do with fiqah and jurisprudence ( and he was a constitutionalist himself- let us not forget- some one who is a constitutionalist does understand the importance of fiqah and religious jurisprudence)… About his affiliation with Shia Islam read “Jinnah as I knew him” by M.A.H.Isphani and “Memories of Jinanh” by K.H.Khursheed- his private secretary. Jinnah, during his talks with Gandhi, cancelled his appointment with him on 21st of Ramadan- according to Khursheed, for the sole reason that it was the day of martyrdom of Hazrat Ali. I think his private secretary knew him quite well.
Yasser : Dear Ammar,I am quite aware of the said incident and I have read K H Khurshid’s book on Jinnah. Maybe I misconstrued what he wrote, but my impression was that Jinnah wanted a “continuance” or an “adjournment” of sorts because he was not prepared that day to argue with Gandhi- probably because either he or Gandhi had failed to read/respond to one of the letters… this is just an impression.But that said… what I meant by cultural affiliation was exactly this: shias have a cultural and historical affiliation with the family of Ali (AS). Theology and religious issues are just not the point. Like I said what Jinnah’s beliefs etc were regarding God etc … are something he could answer and he is dead. In my view a conversion to Sunni faith would have actually shown something more than mere cultural affiliation. The fact that there was none- though Sharifudin Pirzada claims otherwise- shows me religion/community etc were cultural issues. In any event, Jinnah as a Shia would have never allowed for one kind of religious interpretation to reign supreme in a country where Hanafi sunnis had a majority.

Ammar : Yes you are misconstruing the event regarding Jinnah-Gandhi talks,. it was not meant to buy time at all and that too using an overtly religious reasoning! In fact- if you read Khursheed’s narrative carefully- it was not only 21st of Ramadan but also 27th of Ramadan that Jinnah conveyed would be no talks day. Khursheed had to do the explaining to Gandhi about the significance of these two religious days to Muslims. Gandhi was not amused at all as it meant that he had to stay for two more days- something he had not planned at all.
It is human nature that people find it hard to move away from the faith of their fathers and forefathers. Generally there are three reasons for such conversion: faith, benefits ( finanical. marriage related etc) or fear of harm/persecution. In Jinnah’s case I do not see any existence of the last two- so that means it had to do with faiith- otherwise why would he repudiate the faith of his forefahers. As for achieving cultural affiliation with Hazrat Ali’s’ family – he was already achieveing it by being in the Ismaili fold- and if that was his only objective- he did not have to convert to mainstream shia relgion. If I am not wrong Jinnah was an expert in Waqf laws and did have understanding of religious jurisprudence such as different fiqah’s point of views about that.
Yes I agree with the fact that Jinnah as a shia would not have imposed shia fiqah on the country.
I did not comprehend your point about Sharifuddin Pirzada- as to which side he was on. However,what can one say about a person whose own claim about being Jinnah’s private secretary is doubted. To support his claim he produced a picture in which he is standing and smiling behind Jinnah and Gandhi. As I mentioned K.H.Khursheed was his private secretary during those years and has written extensively about Jinnah-Gandhi talks in his book. When Khursheed was shown the picture and told about Pirzada’s claim – he remarked that Pirzada could have used the same picture to claim that he has been Gandhi’s private secretary!
yasser : Which is why I don’t accept Pirzada’s comment.
In my opinion … Jinnah’s conversion from ismaili to ithna ashari shiism had something to do with the issue with the marriage of his sister Mariam Peerbhoy to a sunni and ismaili excommunication of Jinnah’s family.
Please note that all these constitute cultural arguments and we have no clue about Jinnah’s personal view of god etc.
The important point however is that Jinnah would have never accepted imposition of one kind of fiqh.

Kashif Hafeez : Mr. YLH always tried to misguide the people & forced to spread his Ahmadi ideology as he told that ” To drive the point home, he included in his
cabinet a Hindu (Jogindranath Mandal) as a law minister and an Ahmadi
“Muslim” (Ch. Zafrullah Khan) as his foreign minister.”
It is his ideology that Ahamdies are Muslims.Similarly Zafarullah Khan is the person who damaged Pakistan at every stage,in Boundry commission where he gave Ahmadies in allocated time of ML. He didn’t offered the Quaid’s funeral prayer as per according to Ahmadi religion they couldn’t offer the non Ahmadi funeral prayers & thirdy he placed Pakistan in US camp & presented himself as Blue eyed person for US in Pakistan. He was also involved in preaching Ahmadidism in offical post. It was the black age for Pakistan history & for Pakistani Muslim (excluding Ahmadies)
Kashif Hafeez : Another remarkable piece of misguidence “There are many theories as to why Bhutto would do it, but an investigation into the history of Ahmadi conflict in Pakistan leads to some astonishing conclusions about the role of
Pakistan’s military and civil establishment and their blatant use of
religious clergy in creating the conditions which might have forced a
popular national politician like Bhutto to opt for such a drastic and
draconian measure.”

Yasser is right Bhutto was secular, but according to his manifesto Islam is his religion. Ahmadi issue is the religious issue & in camera assembly proceeding Mirza Nasir was trapped in hid own words. After his statements in assembly whole assembly was convinced that these persons are nn Muslims

H Zaneb : The fact that Jinnah did not discuss/preach his faith in public, makes his view of God politically irrelevant.
‘Shameful Flight: The Last Years of the British Empire in India’ by Stanley Wolpert provides a good insight into the background reasons that drifted him away from Congress to Muslim League. It does not appear to be religion, rather it was the unfriendliness of the Congress leadership towards the views/demands of minorities, specially after the British would leave.His initial stance was demand of an ‘Independent’ union of minority (Muslim) provinces/states. I cant say if that qualifies to be called as asking for an ‘Islamic’ state, as his most obvious point was to protect the rights (and not religion) of the minorities. Ofcourse, these basic rights include the right to practice the faith also, but that must not be interpreted out of context.

Kashif Hafeez : Yasser discoverd that ” Please note that all these constitute cultural arguments and we have no clue about Jinnah’s personal view of god etc.. ”
Yes, YLH has no clue but we know that fneral of Quaid-e-Azam was lead by a Sunni Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani. He should also need to read the speaches of Bahadur Yar Jang in presence of Quaid-e-Azam in Hyderabad Daccen. Then he will aware with QA views about GOD.

Yasser : Ladies and gentlemen… He wants us to know Jinnah’s view of god from who led Jinnah’s funeral prayer or by Bahadur yar jang said …
Jinnah had two funeral prayers…one shia prayer in which Fatima and Dina, along with Sir Zafrullah participated.
The other was a sunni prayer led by Usmani.
Perhaps Kashif hafeez can show us where Jinnah appointed Usmani to lead his funeral prayer? The answer is no where.

H Zaneb : In this particular example,Bahadur Yar Jang’s (uninterrupted, I assume so) speeches in Jinnah’s presence appear to speak more of Jinnah’s belief in freedom of expression than of his own faith.

Yasser : Yes…or expediency or lack of understanding of the Urdu language.
Remember Jinnah had asked Raja of Mahmoodabad to distance himself from the League after the Raja had taken to claiming that Pakistan would be a “Quran and Sunnah” based Islamic state. Mahmoodabad himself admitted as much in his memoirs.
Another reason could be that Jang died before the final phase of the movement started.
Jang was – despite his frank and candid relationship with the Quaid- of dubious loyalty given that he was a member of both Khaksar Tehreek (which hated the League and Jinnahy and Muslim League simultaneously.
Kashif Hafeez : Another explosion by YLH “Jinnah had two funeral prayers…one shia prayer in which Fatima and Dina, along with Sir Zafrullah participated”

Yasser : How a Parsi lady can join any Muslim prayers. Is it as mix gender prayer like Amina Wadud did in USA which was criminally supported By Nasseb Editer.
You know very well that Qadyianies never offer any non Ahmadi funerals. Even Mr. Ghulam Ahmad didn’t joined his son funeral who was Muslim, so how an Ahmadi extremist like Mr. Zafar can join any Muslim’s funeral. He was a true follower of Mirza Ahmad Qadiaini. In 1974 Mr. Mirza Nasir 3rd Khalifa accepted on assembly floor that Mr. Zafar didn’t joined any funeral of Quaid (RA).
So one of them is liar : Mr. Nasir or YLH ??
Please don’t misguide others. There was no funeral other than & except Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani (RA) lead prayer.

Kashif Hafeez : Yes…or expediency or lack of understanding of the Urdu language”
Quaid-e-Azam (RA) was a great lawer. In an open session when Bhadur Yar Jang (RA) asked Quaid (RA) we don’t need a state where we can’t rule Islam , QA immediately responded that you are right. Pls keep your spectualtions to yourself
Yasser : The other funeral is a fact and many writers have written about it. Just because you haven’t read enough doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
As for Dina…could you show me where she has called herself Parsi or where she converted to Parsi faith? Contrary to popular belief, she married a christian not a parsi. It is Nusli Wadia, her son, who converted to the faith his father had left.
Similarly I don’t care what Mirza Ghulam Ahmad said or what Mirza Nasir Ahmad accepted (what he did accept was that zafrullah did not pray behind Usmani because usmani considered Ahmadis non-Muslim and not because of anything else contrary to the lies of the islamo-fascist brigade) I know too many Ahmadis who pray in funerals of other Muslims.
As for “Ahmadi extremist” Zafrullah …too bad Jinnah chose him and not one of your kind to represent Pakistan not just internationally but in front of the boundary commission as well. That will forever remain a stinging slap on the face of people like you. Ch. Zafrullah and Dr. Salam will remain much greater as Pakistanis than people like you ever can. Meanwhile you will remain what you are now.
Kashif Hafeez : Quaid ’s Thinking about Pakistan,In his speech at the Frontier Muslim League Conference on November 21, 1945, he said: “We have to fight a double edged battle, one against the Hindu Congress and the British Imperialists, both of them being capitalists. The Muslims demand Pakistan where they could rule according to their own code of life and according to their own cultural growth, traditions and Islamic laws.”
In a message to NWFP Muslim Students Federation in April 1943, he said:
“You have asked me to give a message. What message can I give you? We have got the great message in the Quran for our guidance and enlightenment.”
In an Eid message to the nation in 1945, he said:
“Every Muslim knows that the injunctions of the Quran are not confined to religious and moral duties. Everyone except those who are ignorant, knows that the Quran is the general code of the Muslims. A religious, social, civil, commercial, military, judicial, criminal and penal code; it regulates everything from the ceremonies of religion to those of daily life; from the salvation of the soul to the health of the body; from the rights of all, to those of each individual; from morality to crime; from punishment here to that in the life to come, and our Prophet (S) has enjoined on us that every Muslim should possess a copy of the Holy Quran and be his own priest. Therefore, Islam is not confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrines and rituals and ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslim society in every department of life, collectively and individually.”
In August 1941, Quaid-e-Azam gave an interview to the students of the Osmania University. The replies he gave to the questions asked by the students explain his depth and comprehension of the basic foundations of Islam. Here are excerpts from the interview:

Q. What are the essential features of religion and a religious state?
A. When I hear the word “religion,” my mind thinks at once, according to the English language and British usage, of private relations between man and God. But I know full well that according to Islam, the word is not restricted to the English connotation. I am neither a Maulwi nor a Mullah, nor do I claim knowledge of theology. But I have studied in my own way the Holy Quran and Islamic tenets. This magnificent book is full of guidance respecting all human life, whether spiritual, or economic, political or social, leaving no aspect untouched.

Q. What is the distinctive feature of the Islamic state?
A. There is a special feature of the Islamic state which must not be overlooked. There, obedience is due to God and God alone, which takes practical shape in the observance of the Quranic principles and commands. In Islam, obedience is due neither to a king, nor to a parliament, nor to any other organization. It is the Quranic provisions which determine the limits of our freedom and restrictions in political and social spheres. In other words, the Islamic state is an agency for enforcement of the Quranic principles and injunctions.
There will be no economic exploitation by the capitalists in an Islamic state. In his presidential address delivered to the annual session of the All India Muslim League, in Delhi on April 24, 1943, he said:
“Here I should like to give a warning to the landlords and capitalists who have flourished at our expense by a system which is so vicious, which is so wicked and which makes them so selfish that it is difficult to reason with them. The exploitation of the masses has gone into their blood. They have forgotten the lessons of Islam. Greed and selfishness have made these people subordinate to the interests of others in order to fatten themselves. It is true we are not in power today. You go anywhere to the countryside. I have visited villages. There are millions and millions of our people who hardly get one meal a day. Is this civilization? Is this the aim of Pakistan? Do you visualize that millions have been exploited and cannot get one meal a day? If this is the idea of Pakistan, I would not have it. If they are wise, they will have to adjust themselves to the new modern conditions of life. If they don’t, God help them, we shall not help them.”
He was very clear about role of religion in Pakistan
Kashif Hafeez : What happened with Dina
1) “Dina had broken away from her father after she married Neville Wadia against his wishes”
Ref: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C06%5C26%5Cstory_26-6-2008_pg7_57 .
2) Jinnah later became estranged from his daughter, Dina Jinnah, after she decided to marry Parsi-born Christian businessman, Neville Wadia (even though he had faced the same issues when he married Rattanbai in 1918). Jinnah continued to correspond cordially with his daughter, but their personal relationship was strained
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah
3) Maulama Usmani assocaiation with QA
“The inauguration of the National flag of Pakistan and Constituent Assembly was done by him, on the wish of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah RA. He also led the funeral prayers of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, as per his request”
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabbir_Ahmad_Usmani#Association_with_Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah

Yasser :Yawn! None of those references show that Jinnah wanted an Islamic theocracy which he vehemently opposed. What it shows is that Jinnah thought a secular state was compatible with Islam. Similarly his references to the Quran are for the Muslim community and not the state. It shows he was a smart politician who had learnt the art of indigenization. He was trying to win back his turf from the Mullahs who had won through support of Gandhi. Similarly his reference to lessons of Islam while speaking of social justice is to inspire his people to undo poverty. Again has no bearing on Secular nature of the state.

I see you’ve left out paragraphs from Osmania university interview because in the same interview Jinnah described Secular Turkey as the best example of a Muslim state. You’ve also added words in parts because I have the original as published.
I think the story ends when Jinnah says :
1. “Sharia, whose Sharia, I won’t have anything to do with that. I shall have a modern state”
(1946)
2. You may belong to any religion caste or creed- that has nothing to do with the business of state…in due course of time Hindus shall cease to be Hindus and Muslims shall cease to be Muslims -not in a religious sense for that is the personal faith of an individual. 11th August 1947
3. Pakistan shall not be a theocracy to be run by priests with a divine mission.
4. The new state shall be a modern democratic state with the sovereignty resting with the people unconditionally without regard for caste or creed. Jinnah 21st may 1947 interview with Doon Campbell.
I can quote a million such quotes…
Not only in Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan was an Ahmadi a Muslim if he so professes to be (and to Jinnah, Zafrulla was the finest Muslim lawyer in the field- he asked Nawab of bhopal to release Zafrulla) but could rise to the highest heights of glory.
Similarly in his idea of state, a Hindu or any other non-Muslim could rise to the highest post …
If this is an Islamic state – we embrace it.
Incidentally- Jinnah appointed Jogindranath Mandal – who was Hindu and had no knowledge of Islamic law- the minister for law. Mandal also presided over the inaugural session of Pakistan constituent assembly on Jinnah’s special request ..similarly he chose a Hindu poet to write Pakistan’s first national anthem. This was very symbolic. Jagganath Azad’s anthem was commissioned and approved by Jinnah himself.
I think there is no question left after this that Jinnah wanted a secular state.

Yasser : Now I come to the question of the future constitution of Pakistan being based on Islamic principles. Is it not begging the question- is it not a censure on every league? The constitution of Pakistan shall be what the people of Pakistan will decide”
Jinnah Delhi 1943 while quashing A K Kazi’s resolution calling for Pakistan to be based on Hukumat e illaya -quran and sunnah and the rule of the pious caliphs. Jinnah had the resolution swept under the carpet.

Kashif Hafeez : Another piece for ref..
Quaid-e-Azam was not secular, says Dr Javed Iqbal
http://nation.com.pk/daily/dec-2005/27/localnews1.php
LAHORE – The 129th birthday the Quaid-e-Azam was celebrated in a befitting manner by Nazria Pakistan Foundation at Aiwan-e-Karkunan Tehrik-e-Pakistan on Sunday. This was culmination of the ten days long celebrations of NPF. Dr Javed Iqbal presided while Editor-in-Chief The Nation and Chairman NPF Majid Nizami was guest of honour. The hall was packed to capacity by the participants and Pakistan movement workers. Prominent among them were Dr Rafique Ahmad, Mian Aziz ul Haq Qureshi, Chief Justice (r) Pakistan Dr Nasim Hasan Shah, former Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz, Syed Ahmad Saeed Kirmani, Naseer A Malik, Dr Parveen Khan, Begum Surraya Khurshid and Khawaja Iftikhar Ahmad.
A cake was cut while the Police band performed tunes of national songs. Girl students from Gujranwala also visited the Picture Gallery. Shahid Rashid conducted the proceedings.
Dr Javed Iqbal said there was no truth in the propaganda that the Quaid was secular and he wanted to make Pakistan a secular state. He said how a person who created a country for Muslims and in the name of Islam could be secular. Those who talk like this in fact do not believe in Pakistan, he added. Secularism is hypocrisy to deceive others. How could America be a secular state, which has waged a crusade against Muslim countries or the European Union, which denied membership to Turkey saying that it was a Christian Club. The Quaid’s speech of august is generally exaggerated. In fact the Quaid meant that members of all communities are equal as citizens of the new state while this country had been created on the basis of Muslim majority. The Quaid was also against sectarianism, racialism and regionalism. Instead he believed on Muslim nationhood.
Dr. Javed Iqbal said that we faced crisis when we had ignored Quaid’s ideas adding that prejudices not lead us to better circumstances.
Sartaj Aziz said that two-party system was imperative for Pakistan. The mass parties which have influence in four provinces should be allowed to work but unfortunately not only PML but PPP has been torn apart. He said we should pray that PML should unite for the 2007 elections.
Dr. Nasim Hasan Shah said that he had heard Quaid’s speeches sitting close to him. He said we could achieve success only by following the Quaid.
Dr. Rafique Ahmad said that the year 2006 would be celebrated as year of establishment of ML. He said the nation had been united and the people had come to rescue to the quake hit people without appeal of any political party.
Eminent Pak movement workers Khawaja Iftikhar, Khawaja Khurshid Ahmad Wyne, Mohammad Hanif Shahid, Sardar Ali Ahmad, Zafar Iqbal Chaudhry, Mohammad Salim Malik, Mehmood ul Hassan Jullundhari, Mehmooda Niaz, Anwar Punjabi, Ch. Abdur Rashid, Mohammad Azam, Surraya Ali Asghar, also described their meetings with the Quaid and narrated Pak movement events
.POLITICAL PARTIES URGED TO MAKE CONSENSUS ON WATER RESERVOIRS
The participants of Quaid-e-Azam birthday celebration at Aiwan-e-Karkunan Tehrik-e-Pakistan adopted a number of resolutions. In a resolution the political parties were urged to make consensus on the construction of water reservoirs in the country. The resolution urged for national solidarity and to frustrate designs of those who were bent upon sabotaging national unity.
In another resolution, the reformation of curriculum according to the ideas of Quaid and Allama Iqbal were called for. The government was urged not to eliminate material related Islamic and ideological issues from the books.
Ali Hillaj Dashti : Why don’t people tell the truth of the truths about Jinnah? He was a Shia Muslim. Unless every Pakistani knows it, confusion and cruelty will rule Pakistan, by Allah’s will, as we say.

Yasser : Kashif mian,1 and 2 don’t prove that Dina converted to Parsi religion. I am not sure what your point is. As for 3…Wikipedia is not an authentic source. There is absolutely no primary source reference to Usmani being chosen by the Quaid to inaugurate the flag nor is there any proof or evidence of this.
Furthermore Jinnah NEVER asked for anyone to do his funeral prayers. I see now that your great muslimnesss has faded away and you’ve resorted to making unsubstantiated claims. I challenge you to produce a single verifiable document, a letter or any verifiable report proving your lie. Usmani wasn’t even in Ziyarat or at Jinnah’s deathbed.
In any event the issue remains:
1. Pakistan’s first foreign minister was an Ahmadi appointed by Jinnah himself.
2. Pakistan’s first LAW minister chosen by Jinnah himself was a Hindu and Mandal had no training in Islamic law.
3. Pakistan’s first national anthem was written by a Hindu.
No amount of news reports about the folks at nawai waqt sponsored aiwan e karkunan e tehreek e Pakistan mouthing off or lies about Usmani’s “nomination” will change the facts.
Jinnah was a cultural shia muslim. His personal beliefs we know nothing off. All of what you’ve written is garbage and had you not forgotten the lessons of Islam about honesty etc, you would not be so dishonest.

Yasser : Mr. Dashti,There is a signed affidavit from Fatima Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan that affirms that Jinnah was a “khoja shia mohammaden”.
A court in Zia’s time over ruled this.
However Bombay High Court has apparently endorsed this position – ie Jinnah was a Khoja Shia Mohammaden…which is why is property shall be subject to “Hindu Family Law” which is followed by Khoja Shia Mohammadens.
Unlike the islamic ideologues here I am both friends with and in touch with many of Jinnah’s surviving relatives in Bombay and I can confirm that Jinnah was a Shia Muslim .. he was more Shia than he was a Muslim because he did partake in cultural commemoration of Karbala but he flouted the so called Islamic laws.

ahmad khan : So what jinnah was a shia muslim ?
If there is a conflict between the example of the Prophet (SAW) and the Quran on one hand and Jinnah on the other hand, Jinnah is plain wrong.

Yasser : And you have the right to your own opinion my dear Ahmad khan.
Also on Bhutto’s manifesto… Bhutto had on numerous occasions in his 1970 election campaign denounced anti-ahmadi angle of Jamaat e Islami.
The people voted for PPP and rejected the Jamaat e islami just as they had rejected jamaat e islami and Jamiat e ulema hind types in 1946…
Bhutto’s step in 1974 was a far greater and clearer renunciation of his manifesto than ML’s renunciation of Jinnah in form of the nefarious objectives resolution of 1949.
Kashif Hafeez : Barkhurdar Yasser,You should read the speech of Bhutto which he delivered on assembly floor ob September 6th 1974. You will know what was his opinion about Ahmadies.

Kashif Hafeez : “Similarly I don’t care what Mirza Ghulam Ahmad said or what Mirza Nasir Ahmad accepted (what he did accept was that zafrullah did not pray behind Usmani because usmani considered Ahmadis non-Muslim and not because of anything else contrary to the lies of the islamo-fascist brigade) I know too many Ahmadis who pray in funerals of other Muslims.”
YLH Mian, pls read the assembly proceedings of 7th & 23rd August 1974 where Mirza Nasir accepted that it is the part of their belief that they couldn’t offer funeral of non Ahmadies. More over Zafar didn’t also offered the funeral of Shaheed Liaquat Ali Khan.
By the way this theory also exist that LAQ has decided to remove him from FM post but “someone” killed him & that “person” was killed by “some others” at the spot
Other part ”
As for “Ahmadi extremist” Zafrullah …too bad Jinnah chose him and not one of your kind to represent Pakistan not just internationally but in front of the boundary commission as well.”
I have mentioned that Zafar gave the chance to Ahmadies in ML allocated time to proved themselves as seperate nation from Mislims just Like Hindues & Parsies because Mirza Ghulam requested British Govt in 1901 cencus that Ahmadies should be consider as “Other” than Muslims.
Due this criminal act of Zafar & Ahmadies gave the chance to boundry commission to allocate Gawardusput towards India side, so in this way Indians can enter in Kashmir through Ferozpur.
After partition QA just alived for an year & most of the time he was concentrating on internal fronts. However it was mistake.
Yasser : That Bhutto lacked the personal integrity and intellectual honesty is a fact of history… So do I care what he said on September 23, 1974? No.
Bhutto’s view of Ahmadis whatever it was did not matter so long as he needed their support of Ahmadis for which he went begging to Rabwah on several occasions.
Thanks for telling us about a theory that “exists” in your head… but according to Kaushik atleast Liaqat Ali Khan was killed off by Jamaat-e-Islami extremists. So no such theory really exists.
I have the proceedings of the boundary commission as well… your claim is a lie. So much for Islam Islam you do. What you’ve alleged is certainly not true for boundary commission proceedings where Zafrullah tried to get as much territory for Pakistan as possible… indeed the government of Pakistan through zafrullah submitted that Qadian was a MUSLIM holy place.
I’d like you to produce a single document from the boundary commission proceeding that even remotely proves your point.
Your failure to do so will prove yet again that you are a liar without remorse.
PS: I’d also like to see you prove your claim that LAK was trying to remove Zafrulla from the foreign ministry.
So far the facts stand:
1. Jinnah appointed an Ahmadi Muslim as the first foreign minister of Pakistan and to represent Pakistan at all international fora.
2. Jinnah appointed a Hindu law minister and the Hindu in question had no knowledge of Islamic law.
3. Jinnah got a Hindu to write Pakistan’s first national anthem.
4. Jinnah considered all such requests to expel Ahmadis from the League criminal and a conspiracy against Muslims
These facts cannot be impugned no matter how many lies Kashif Hafeez conjures up from where the sun don’t shine.
Majumdar : Kashif mian, MAJ (pbuh) was very fond of ham and wine, which is both haraam in Islam, no?
Adnan Siddiqi : “MAJ (pbuh) was very fond of ham and wine”
Majumdar,What are you trying to prove? Was Jinnah anti-Religion? Jinnah’s own words which explains his understand about Islam and Islamic Shariah for governance.
The Prophet of Islam (PBUH) was a great teacher. He was a great lawgiver. He was a great statesman and he was a great sovereign who ruled. The life of the Prophet (PBUH) was simple according to those times. He was successful in everything that he put his hand to from as a businessman to as a ruler. The Prophet (PBUH) was the greatest man that the world had ever seen. Thirteen hundred years ago he laid the foundations of democracy(occasion of the Holy Prophet’s birthday at the Karachi Bar Association on 25th January 1948)
Unlike ignorant and “West aligned” liberals Jinnah was well aware that Islam is not like other big religions like Judaism and Christianity who never supported democracy that’s why a century or more ago people in US had to run movement against involvement of Church in government matters. Jinnah says further:
It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct set for us by our great lawgiver, the Prophet of Islam. Let us lay the foundations of our democracy on the basis of true Islamic ideals and principles(Civil, Naval, Military and Air Force Officers at Khaliqdina Hall Karachi on 11th October 1947)
And Jinanh knew the worth of Quran unlike many other modernists of his times:
What is it that keeps the Muslims united as one man, and what is the bedrock and sheet-anchor of the community. It is Islam. It is the Great Book, Quran, that is the sheet-anchor of Muslim India. I am sure that as we go on there will be more and more of oneness, one God, one Book, one Prophet and one Nation(All-India Muslim League, Karachi on 26th December 1943)
Jinnah was clearly willing to have a “Dream world” for Muslims where they can have life according to teachings of Islam.
And then the great man knew how his religious authenticity will be challenged by self-appointed “Muftis” of Jinnahism , as he said:
Every Mussalman knows that the injunctions of the Holy Quran are not confined to religious and moral duties. From the Atlantic to the Ganges, says Gibbon, the Holy Quran is acknowledged as the fundamental code, not only of theology, but of civil and criminal jurisprudence, and the laws which regulate the action and the property of mankind are governed by immutable sanctions of the will of God”. Everyone, except those who are ignorant, knows the Holy Quran is the general code of the Muslims(message of Eid to the Muslims in September 1945)
“everyone,except those who are ignorant”
So Jinanh was Shia or some xyz, he was clear about Islam and Islamic history. Jinnah would have eaten pork but then early generation of Islam was non-Muslim too but it does it mean we exhibit our “intellectual ignorance” by cursing them that they were infidels? Couldn’t Jinnah read Islam later when he was up for Pakistan?, the country for Muslims.
I don’t need some xyz author on Jinnahism to make me understand who was Jinnah and what did he want? thanks to Jinnah sahab that he himself cleared lots of doubts in his own words. that’s our ignorance if we are not willing to accept, well who cares?

Yasser : Adnan siddiqui,How long are you going to keep up this drama.
None of these statements in the least prove that Jinnah did not want a secular liberal state. Whether he felt that it was compatible with Islam is another matter.
Jinnah also called Ataturk the greatest musalman alive, Turkey the greatest muslim state at present and appointed a Hindu law minister and a qadiani ahmadi as the foreign minister.
And all you have are a few statements where Jinnah is trying to convince his followers that his idea of Pakistan was perfectly Islamic.
I am afraid this picking and choosing has no meaning when we consider the following:
In Jinnah’s Pakistan religion was to be a personal faith and there would be no bar on the basis of religion. This is secularism. If this secular state is islamic then we accept such an islamic state.

Adnan Siddiqi : Yasser,that statement was not for you so you could easily ignore it or atleast keep in mind what I already said on other post. No one asked you to agree with me.

Adnan Siddiqi : Jinnah also called Ataturk the greatest musalman alive, Turkey the greatest muslim state at present and appointed a Hindu law minister and a qadiani ahmadi as the foreign minister,and it makes him secular? are you really saying that?

Yasser : No mian, what made him secular was that he believed that the state should be impartial to a person’s faith … And that religion was a personal matter.
I was pointing out the absurdity in your logic because to Jinnah Ataturk was the greatest musalman of the age and Turkey the greatest Muslim state – and its not like Jinnah was oblivious to developments in Turkey. One of his favorite books was “greywolf intimate study of a dictator” on Ataturk. So it shows that the quotes above don’t mean what you want them to mean.
Also appointing a Hindu (who had no clue about islamic law- jogindranath could not tell a shia from a sunni) as the LAW minister certainly did not mean sharia.
Kashif Hafeez : Dear Mian YLH, U need to give some rest to your nerves. You always irritate when proves comes against your false propaganda in favor of Ahmadies & your selfmade quotes from history.
1) “Wikipedia is not an authentic source” – so it means ur own self made intro of yourself on same place is totally wrong, fraud & baseless because as you said is “unauthentic”
2) It is your perspective that what you present is authentic & references of others who disagree with u, needs “Verification”.
3) Your whole emphasized is on one point “Quaid-e-Azam was Shia. Then so what ? He was very clear about Islam & its role in state. Although after giving various verified proves you are ready to agree. Readers! Pls read following master piece by the pen of Prof Khurshid Ahmad. http://www.jamaat.org/Isharat/2001/ish0801.html
4) If someone believe on democracy then in 1974 representatives of all four provinces of Pakistan belongs to all political & religious parties of Pakistan irrespective of Shia, sunni, ahlehadiet, UNANIMOUSLY passed the resolution & declared Ahmadies as non Muslims. Those who are disagreed are insulting the Pakistani nations unified decision. Only Ahmadies have problem because after partition they are propagating themselves as a part of Umma otherwise they considered them selves as minority as they requested in boundary commission by Mirza Tahir. So don’t insult national decision
5) “indeed the government of Pakistan through zafrullah submitted that Qadian was a MUSLIM holy place” ooooo pls stop here see what a finding YLH is sharing with us “.government of Pakistan through zafrullah submitted that Qadian was a MUSLIM holy place” can anyone tell me that who gave the great advise to Zafar to do this. So after giving time to Ahmadies in allocated time of ML, he committed another criminal act.
6) It’s now very clear that why British army secured Qadiain as it was requested by a true loyal practicing Ahmadi Zafar, where as in other areas Sikh & Hindues was killing Muslims
7) According to YLH “where Zafrullah tried to get as much territory for Pakistan as possible…” Readers in proceeding in boundary commission u will surprised that Zafar didn’t discussed the importance of tehseel Pathankot of Gawardspur for Pakistan. Another thing is that there is no record of debate of lawyers of parties in commission proceedings. (Martial law to martial law by Syed Noor Ahmad)
Pls also read about the Role of Ahmadies by recalling memories by Justice Munir a member of boundary commission in Nawa-e-waqt 7th July 1964
9) Now YLH appeared as traditional laraka women style “but according to Kaushik atleast Liaqat Ali Khan was killed off by Jamaat-e-Islami extremists” YLH you needs sleeping pills & some anti anxiety tablets, now every where in ur dreams JI is moving.
10) YLH be clear : Ahmadies are non Muslims , Zafar was an extremist Ahmadi who placed Ahmadies on important placements in govt. These are his words’ You can say that I am a Kafir FM of Muslim country or Muslim FM of Kafir govt.”
Sa’ad Abbasi : Who cares what Jinnah said or thought about the future of Pakistan.
Pakistan is not a gift from Jinnah and we are not bound by what he had in mind for it. The Pakistani people through their actions and will have made an unequivocal statement and that is pakistan is and shall remain an Islamic Republic. We the people of Pakistan are the owners and master’s of the present and future of Pakistan. Jinnah along with his humbug of a speech in the constituent Assembly are long dead.

Majumdar : Abbasi sahib,Actually I agree with what you say here. Much as I respect MAJ (pbuh) and would like his vision to be implemented in all the three countries of the subcontinent, in the ultimate analysis it is today’s Pakistanis who have to make a decision on what Pakistan shud be like. If it means jettisoning his vision, so be it.
However, the people of Pakistan have to take a responsibility for their decision. If they implement a Islamic system and they find that as a consequence of that decision, they have fallen behind the rest of the world, they shud not blame the ROW of their misfortunes.
Yasser : Actually,what Mr. Abbassi says is as usual nonsense.
Consider: Pakistan was created on a principle: A permanent majority cannot by sheer strength of numbers dominate a permanent minority. Democracy does not equal tyranny of the majority. By violating this basic principle of Pakistan, you unmake the made, unbake the cake.And people like Abbasi ought to get in their head that yes… it was Jinnah’s gift,and it is Jinnah’s picture that hangs on the walls,and Jinnah is mentioned even in the preamble of the constitution… So long as that happens, we will continue to invoke Jinnah… And you can have your “Islamic” republic or whatever the hell it is that you want but you will have to operate in perpetuity within the framework of fundamental rights which has an overriding effect in the constitution…
People voted enmasse for Jinnah not Maududi, Mashriqi, Mufi or Madni…
Jinnah is and will always be greater than the sum total of the entire Pakistan movement.
Majumdar : Yasser mian, A permanent majority cannot by sheer strength of numbers dominate a permanent minority. Aye, that is true. Pakistan was made on two noble principles. First, what you have mentioned and second provincial autonomy. And incidentally LR-40 provided for safeguards to non-M minorities in M- majority regions just as it called for safeguards for Ms in non M- majority regions.
But the question that Abbasi sahib poses is that with a 97% Muslim majority and if that majority wants a Shariah based state as interpreted by Mullahs themselves (hypothetically, I dont want what Pak Muslims really want) what do you do about it? Especially, as people like Abbasi sahib can claim support for that from the Objectives Resolution. IMHO, unless OR is deleted from the constt, it wud be difficult to create the state that MAJ (pbuh) had dreamt of in his 8/11 speech.
Yasser : Frankly one can do nothing except remind people of what Jinnah wanted… and the principle on which the country was founded… which is what I am doing.
People like Abbasi have a problem with me even expressing my point of view… they are so threatened that the truth might eat them alive.

Majumdar : Yasser mian,One has to begin with the education system I guess. You have to tell young students the truth behind the Pakistan movement including esp the obligation that Pakistan has towards its own minorities and smaller nationalities.
Ahmad khan
the question is why was pakistan even formed then ?
Yasser : Pakistan was formed on the principle that a permanent majority may not by sheer strength in numbers dominate a permanent minority… and adjunct of this was provincial autonomy … together these two principles form the grundnorm of Pakistan.
Pakistan’s Islamization thus has negated the principle on which Pakistan was founded.
Ahmad khan : but was’nt the Indian National congress promising a secular India ?
“Pakistan was formed on the principle that a permanent majority may not by sheer strength in numbers dominate a permanent minority”
Are the majority and minority communities not “religious” communities ? If religion was not to be a factor in public life and governance then why need Pakistan anyway ?
Ahmad khan : Secondly the formation of Pakistan did not solve the issue anyway of the principle problem you describe so why Pakistan then ?
Huge number of muslims remained in India – they remain a minority there while hindus and others remain a minority in Pakistan
Yasser : Damage done by Pakistan studies is deep.
The apprehension that Muslim bourgeoisie had – and which was partially confirmed by 1937-1938 Congress ministries- was that Hindus would dominate culturally, economically and socially in a system which does not have adequate electoral and other safeguards built into the system. In other words the “Secular India” by which you probably mean an India based on unfettered one man one vote would in actual reality would be a Hindu state … What the Muslim bourgeoisie were after was a certain amount of autonomy in form of Pakistan which could be within the Indian Union or an independent state. Since the Congress refused to accept an autonomous Pakistan within the Indian Union, Pakistan became a sovereign state.
These communities are no doubt based on religion – that is the way things are in this region. But majority community’s aspirations ought not infringe the rights of the minority community. Tis is what the principle is. Therefore any constitutional plan unacceptable to the minority communities of Pakistan – whether they be religion based on language based- is automatically a violation of the basic principle of Pakistan. Objectives Resolution was passed in a manner where all of the Muslim members voted for it except one… and all Non-Muslim members voted against it. Thus Objectives Resolution in of itself is violative of the principle on which Pakistan was founded.
“why need Pakistan”
The issue as explained was a constitutional, economic and political one … for the most part it has helped a Muslim bourgeoisie develop its own state …. I don’t see how you feel religion had to be part of governance for Pakistan to achieve its primary objectives…. Pakistan has all the potential to achieve its primary objectives … but that would require us to stop chasing after mirages of Islamic state.
As for your second question… no. For this you need to read the text of the Lahore Resolution which has been alluded to by Majumdar.
Ahmad khan : You say the muslim “middle class” which was suspicious of the INC true
but how were they different from the “hindu” middle class except they self-identified themselves as muslim
Yasser : Kashif hafeez
1. I see that my entry on wiki has bit you hard. Why don’t you try starting your own and see if it stays up. And no wiki is not reliable.
2. Wikipedia v primary sources – let it go man you are on thin ice.
3. How and why does my case rest on Jinnah being shia? As for Jinnah’s vision of islam in state- yes he was clear – religion would have nothing to do with the business of the state and none of your quotes selective as they are prove otherwise. Also so we are supposed to accept khurshid’s view when Jamaat e islami was one of the biggest opponents of the creation of Pakistan. Now you are going to call jamaat e islami’s propaganda “authentic” eh? You are a joke.
4. Democracy does not mean the tyranny of the majority.
5 to 7 is pure nonsense and if you are an honest man you would accept it. But that lesson of Islam you’ve truly forgotten.
For proceedings of boundary commission read “Ian Talbott’s region and partition”.
Yasser : Ahmad, The identification was not voluntary.
Hindu bourgeoisie developed because enlightened reformers like ram mohan roy urged hindus to embrace modern education a good 80 years before Muslims…
Muslim bourgeoisie began developing only after western education was slowly and painfuly accepted.
Adnan Siddiqi : No mian, what made him secular was that he believed that the state should be impartial to a person’s faith … And that religion was a personal matter.
you better quit trolling about it to me while you can’t convince me. I gave you his speeches on basis of what I believe certain thing about him so quit coming back to me.
One of his favorite books was “greywolf intimate study of a dictator” on Ataturk.
you made me laugh with your logic. I personally believe that Agha Khani is the most managed community exist in Pakistan which have done several good things for social welfare. I also believe that if we start copying only 30% of their management then lots of social problems could solve. Now according to your lame logic, I am pro-Agha Khani belief because I like few things about Agha Khanis or I am a pro-Parsi follower because I appreciate the work done by Parsis for Karachi’s betterment? eheh Yasser I am not surprised because this is how you learnt logic in your Western Madarassahs. Your enslaving mentality don’t let you to think anything other than “secularism” even if it’s “Islam”
So it shows that the quotes above don’t mean what you want them to mean
Yawn, those are not my words. Those were said by Jinnah. I am quite bored of self-acclaimed Jinnah specialists who even reject Jinnah’s word to prove their point. Atleast show some dignity and accept the words said by Jinnah so that even your opponents take you serious.
I was replying to Majumdar so kindly speak when you are spoken to.

Adnan Siddiqi : Who cares what Jinnah said or thought about the future of Pakistan.
Pakistan is not a gift from Jinnah and we are not bound by what he had in mind for it
Interesting point of view. It’s interesting to note why so called Jinnah’s lovers trying to impose “Jinnah’s Shariah”[his vision] while Pakistanis are free to decide whatever they want? As these psuedo secularists quote Jinnah’s 11th August speech, “You are free” thus it means Jinnah is not dictating Pakistanis to follow what he had visioned or wanted. Jinnah never wanted that future secular thugs try to dictate majority of Pakistanis by using his words. India today is not limited to What Gandhi and Nehru said, India is free and progressing on whatever their current principals are. they ain’t whining for Bapu or Nehru. Even if they demand to follow Bapu’s vision then its their choice! According to basic rule of democracy, no one can force Pakistanis to follow what Jinnah said. As zardari said, “This is not Quran or Hadith as one has to follow anyway”.
shall remain an Islamic Republic. We the people of Pakistan are the owners and master’s of the present and future of Pakistan
So far the mind set of Pakistani is not secular and no one can dictate to change it no matter how many YLH exist on Pakistani soil. They are free to do whatever they want.

Yasser :
1. You are trolling me. I frankly don’t wish to convince you of anything.
2. Yawn let’s go over one more time. The fact that Jinnah called Ataturk the greatest musalman of the age and Turkey the greatest Muslim state worthy of emulation itself is relevant to the quotes from Jinnah which have references to Islam and Muslims. Clearly Jinnah’s idea of a Muslim state was completely secular … And he said so clearly repeatedly.
3. I have already shown you that none of those quotes contradict the basic principle of state impartiality to faith that Jinnah was committed to which secularism.
As for post no 2. 11th August speech is not the only speech I have quoted (I have quoted 30 or 40 others) but 11th August is the most important because Jinnah was addressing the constituent assembly of the new nation. He laid down the principle which he thought would best suit the new nation state.
Now Jinnah was certainly not someone to impose his will in perpetuity but Jinnah’s principles were the right principles because
1. Doing otherwise would negate the basic principle of Pakistan – permanent majority shall not dominate a permanent minority by sheer numbers.
2. Those principles enunciated by Jinnah on 11th August and subsequently on 30 other occasions ie inclusive citizenship, equality, justice for all and no bars on people because of their religious beliefs are principles that sustain states. Religious exclusion on the other hand destroys systems.
If Pakistani mindset is not secular or is not in line with these principles, Pakistan will continue to slide down a slippery pole.
But that’s just my opinion (and was Jinnah’s opinion as well since he predicted soon enough that every successive govt in Pakistan would be worse than the next)…
So take it or leave it but if you wish to shut me up or stop me from telling the truth, you will have to do more than you are.
H Zainab : From what I have gathered by now (please correct if/where I am wrong)
1. Pakistan movement did not start in the same spirit as it ended with; the initial idea was that of a kind of independent union of Muslim majority provinces that, over a sequence of events, slipped into demand for a separate country.
2. Jinnah was by far the only Muslim leader whose words carried weight for the British.
3. Jinnah’s lifestyle and outlook was predominantly secular.
4. The idea of getting a separate country for Muslims did not, solely, come from Jinnah. More accurately, he undertook the responsibility to defend the case for the Muslim minority.
5. The Indian Muslims were looking forward to get rid of the British Raj as well as the Congress rhetoric of Indian Union, and to establish/strengthen their cultural and religious identities. So, though religious in their hearts, they were not struggling for Shari’a exactly. I guess it was too chaotic a time for the masses to have a precise agenda in mind.
6. Now we have a secular Jinnah leading the religious Indian Muslims. This situation depicts that the shade of religion that will rule the life of people afterward, was still not the biggest issue.
7. Then we get Pakistan. Constitutional assembly is formed, and details have to be carved out. The things that were trivial before, become the hot agenda now. Since Pakistan was created in the name of the Indian Muslims (and not the Indian minorities), so Islam was understandably declared the code of life.
8. Now comes the point of contention. When you declare yourself an Islamic country, how is it practically possible to get away from Islam? Or not to include Objectives Resolution in your constitution? Or is it allowed, being a Muslim, to have/follow a law other than the Islamic?
Jokes aside, would not the name ‘Republic of Pakistan’ have been a better option to begin with?
so that we could just have adapted the British Constitution a bit here and a bit there, to our requirements?
And is it that Jinnah did not know the course events could take by agreeing to the name ‘Islamic Republic of Pakistan’?
Yasser : Jinnah never agreed to the name Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
In his lifetime Pakistan remained the “Dominion of Pakistan”.
Pakistan became an Islamic Republic in 1956 long after both Jinnah and Liaqat were gone.
Yasser : Nor was the objectives resolution passed in Jinnah’s life.
It was passed in 1949 and Jinnah died in 1948.
All minority members who spoke on the day said that had Jinnah been alive objectives resolution would not have passed.And they were right – Jinnah had vetoed and blocked a similar resolution in the Muslim League in 1943 which had sought to make Pakistan an Islamic state.
Jinnah’s strategy was that rhetoric notwithstanding, keep such religious agendas out of documents of national and political importance.
Adnan Siddiqi : YLH, I would reply you in typical desi style:
Maaf Karday! Jaan leyga Bachay ki?
Jinnah’s principles were right or wrong, you are not the messiah of this country to impose Jinnah’s Shariah. Don’t be an “Urban Taliban” of Raza rumi and let others use their own brains. The America you love don’t cry for what Columbus would have said or what Abraham Lincoln would have said. Move on dude and enjoy life.
Yasser : I think Raza would be hitting himself on the head right now at your misuse of his term. How does expressing my opinion stops people from thinking
for their selves? Why does my opinion bother you? And how am I imposing it on you?
Don’t worry I enjoy life plenty …but you need to get something clearly: you don’t have to agree with me but you won’t be able to shut me up.
As for the Americans plenty of them invoke Lincoln, Jefferson, Franklin and Washington. You should go and see the crowds at Lincoln’s memorial.
But why this sudden love for Americans eh?
Sa’ad Abbasi : Yasser,Here is another thought.Jinnah was working for the british who wanted a base in the sub-continent for prepetuation of Anglo saxon empire. He was conned by the Hindus who wanted Muslims out of India so that they can establish Baharat.So in the end he served both the Hindu and the British interest.The only people he did not serve were his own!
Yasser : This is why thinking is not your forte.
It has been 62 years since partition and transfer of power paper documents have been de-classified and there isn’t a single document that anyone whether from India, or Britain or ingrates like yourself have been able to produce that even in the slightest bit impugn Jinnah’s integrity and incorruptibility ….
So stop thinking now… you are incapable of thinking logically- quite clearly. With all due respect ofcourse.
Sa’ad Abbasi :Mujamdar Sb,Islam has nothing to do with backwardness, remember Cordoba and Baghdad were products of this very Islam. The Delhi that Indian so proudly present to the international tourist today is a direct product of Islam. The reformist thoughts within hinduism such as the Bhaghati movement is a direct product of Islam. The Western thought and science and culture stands on the foundation created by Islam.
The very idea that an Islamic Republic will be something similar to one created by the Taliban in Afghanistan is gross injustice to Islam and its thought of social justice and equality.The problem is not with Islam the problem is with the people who have never really bothered to know the system or its history. Thus creating an envoirnment of fear and mistrust when the idea of Islamic republic is aired.
One must never forget that islamic regimes whereever and in whatever form were the most tolerant towards other peoples and faith starting from Medinah in the days of the prophet to the fall of the Caliphate in 1923. Jewish and Hindu and Christian history stands as a testament to this fact.
Aliarqam : Poor Yasser
Burden of Jinnah’s advocacy on the shoulders….
You need three more to do this for U and for the stranger in the country of his own…
His Party ML nowadays ….has used his name in the same way as he used the religious terms in political campaigns
The same KHOTAY SIKKAYS have done the same with their Enlightened moderate mentor Musharrrraf….as the have done to Jinnah sb…
As Sherry once Said…Revenge of the history
Another ML is alley with JI…
Yasser : Nice try… but Jinnah needs no advocacy – his integrity and character remain unimpeached despite best efforts of the ingrates….
Pakistan does… however.As for ML… simply because a military dictator puts together a group of people and affixes the title “ML” on them doesn’t make it Jinnah’s party… it shows instead the emotional significance of the name.Ayub’s Council Muslim League was Unionist Party re-hashed. Zia’s Muslim League i.e. Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz is basically Majlis-e-Ahrar-Jamaat-e-Islami re-hashed…. and Musharraf’s PML-Quaid was again a Unionist redux. It is therefore wrong to suggest that present MLs have anything to do with Jinnah’s League. Quite the contrary… they consist primarily of his most ardent opponents. Some of their other erstwhile allies include ANP for example. Much like… Abu Sufiyan’s descendants took control of Prophet Muhammad’s Islam… to make an analogy.There are – to my mind – only two parties in the subcontinent with a direct unbroken chain with Jinnah’s Muslim League… the Indian Union Muslim League which is part of the Congress coalition in India… and the Awami League of Bangladesh which was evolved out of “Jinnah Awami Muslim League” of Suhrawardy and Daultana.
Yasser : Also the real revenge of history was when the grandson of the champion of Pakhtoonistan had to be evacuated from Pakhtunkhwa on a Pakistan Army helicopter and relocated in Islamabad, the federal capital of Pakistan, for safety.
That to my mind is the revenge of history… but then that is just my opinion…
Aliarqam : Abu Sufiyan’s descendants took control of Prophet Muhammad’s Islam… to make an analogy…Maududi’s approach to the issue….but it is another debate
Then First of all let us try to get the ML free from those opponents of Jinnah….then will strive for Jinnah’s envision
There are – to my mind – only two parties in the subcontinent with a direct unbroken chain with Jinnah’s Muslim League… the Indian Union Muslim League which is part of the Congress coalition in India… and the Awami League of Bangladesh which was evolved out of “Jinnah Awami Muslim League” of Suhrawardy and Daultana.
Hossp : Mujib was never a socialist. He was a Muslim League student leader and a low ranking ML leader later on. Yes, in 1972 he declared Bangladesh a socialist and secular country but within two years he changed the constitution to revert it back to non secular. Then he went on reciting the Quran ayah before his speeches. He allowed JI to rehabilitate after the Islamic summit in Lahore to get aid from Saudi Arabia.
Aliarqam : Yasser,What it shows is that Jinnah thought a secular state was compatible with Islam. Similarly his references to the Quran are for the Muslim community and not the state. It shows he was a smart politician who had learnt the art of indigenization. He was trying to win back his turf from the Mullahs who had won through support of Gandhi. Similarly his reference to lessons of Islam while speaking of social justice is to inspire his people to undo poverty..
The Smartness continues……from ZA Bhutto’s Islamization to Zia’s use of term Majlis Shuura…from Nawaz Sharif declaration of Sharit as supreme law to MMA Haba Bill and ANP Sharia Regulations….Go on with the same…
Looking forward for some new episodes from HH Zardari and HH Gailani…
One more cruel Joke…
Gailani to Sohail Waraich
in “Eik Din Geo K Sath”
Ideal personality M A Jinnah in view of Gailani sb favourite book Indi Wins Freedom…
Favourite Book

Yasser : Dear Ali… A good lawyer distinguishes between what is part of the document and what is kept out of it. The difference between Jinnah and Bhutto was that Jinnah managed to keep any and all references to religion out of legislation and official documents and party resolutions- you can see every major resolution … Lahore resolution for example has no reference to Islam – it refers to Muslims… Jinnah’s constituent assembly speech has no reference to Islam… Neither the working committee of the Muslim League nor the Pakistan Constituent Assembly as long as Jinnah was alive ever passed a single resolution or legislation committing Pakistan to Islamic law…
Bhutto on the other hand allowed religion to creep in in a major form even though his platform was roti kapra and makan and not group identity. Same goes for on a smaller scale for the ethnonationalists… especially ANP’s concessions to the Islamists. Isn’t it ironic that the “Islamic” Constitution of Pakistan based on Quran and Sunnah was passed by an assembly in which Pakistan People’s Party was the majority party and the main opposition was also secular.
As for freeing the ML…. why should there even be a Muslim League in Pakistan when Jinnah already made it clear that in due course of time religious identities would not matter… it is about evolution. There is no real Muslim League… it is time to have a Pakistan League instead.
On the issue of Mujeeb… Hossp is a bit off. Mujeeb remained secular to the end though an authoritarian megalomaniac. Bangladesh inserted the Islam clause under General Zia-ur-Rahman …
Aliarqam : Dear Hamdani “Isn’t it ironic that the “Islamic” Constitution of Pakistan based on Quran and Sunnah was passed by an assembly in which Pakistan People’s Party was the majority party and the main opposition was also secular.”
“Bangladesh inserted the Islam clause under General Zia-ur-Rahman …”
Why????????????????
Who forced them to do that..
“The people voted for PPP and rejected the Jamaat e islami just as they had rejected jamaat e islami and Jamiat e ulema hind types in 1946…”
As it is repeated constantly that Jinnah was very fond of ham and wine…..but“The masses voted for Jinnah because they trusted his judgement completely. They always knew that he was westernized and was accused of not knowing the basics of Islam. But they voted for him as one… he was their lawyer, their leader”

Eteraz : otherwise irreligious and secular minded people manipulate people’s romantic views of Islam in order to advance political control.
ZAB falls in the latter category. We like to pretend that he “capitulated” to the Islamists, when, in fact, he tried to center control for himself by occupying the people with Islamic issues. The Ahmadi amendment wasn’t the only Islamist thing he promulgated: The 1973 constitution made Islam the State religion. He hosted the Organization of Islamic Conference in Lahore. Promised an Islamic bomb…put Wahhabis like Zia in his military…Same story from begining to now….
I believe in a National Democratic and liberal Pakistan…….
But let us dare to accept the smartness shown by our leaders in raising religious slogans and using religious terms was not,is not and will not be fare in politics…whoever has used it or using it or will use it…..

Yasser : Ali,Ataturk’s use of Islam, Quran and other Islamic symbols was far more obvious than Jinnah’s vague references (for which Jinnah had no choice because Gandhi had already made appeal to religion essential feature of Indian politics) … once Ataturk decided to separate Church and State he managed to do it very well. Similarly US’s founding fathers made several references to God, church and Christianity ..but managed to keep the constitution secular. And last but not the least, India managed to keep its constitution secular despite Gandhi’s repeated references to Ram Rajya and Hindu roots.
Pakistan’s rot started when religion was brought into a document..starting with the objectives resolution and then the constitution of 1973 which made Islam the state religion and the state subservient to Quran and Sunnah.
Majumdar : Adnan sb,they ain’t whining for Bapu or Nehru.
Indians aint whining for Bapu or Nehru ‘cos they know that the above two were rotten apples. The reason why a few patriotic Paki Muslims like YLH are “whining” for MAJ (pbuh) is becuase they know that the great man had the right vision for Pakistan.
Abbasi sb/Yasser mian,
The total Muslim population of Undivided India incl princely states was 95 million as per 1941 Census out of a total of c. 390 million (24.5% or so), now whether that constitutes a majority or minority I will leave you guys to decide. As of 2001, Muslims would have been c. 400 m out of total population of 1.3 billion or roughly 31%.
Abbasi sb,
The Hindus did their math and agreed to the partition.
Actually you are correct on this.….eagerly jumped at by Hindu nationalists a.k.a Nehru and Patel.
Pls dont compare the two. The former was a certified scum, the latter was a genuine Hindoo Indian nationalist and should have been the PM of India. The latter had the right economic ideas and wud have prevented India from becoming the slum that it has.
Imagine what they could have achived with a 30 % population. Yes, I can imagine. And that’s why you wouldn’t find too many thinking Hindoos clamouring for a reunification.
Sa’ad Abbasi : Mujamdar Sb! Yea I saw that a long time ago, only YLH and the sorts think hat Pakistan was won from the Hindoos and the British:)
I think you are being unjust to Nehru, one only has to read his Discovery of India to feel how deeply enamoured he was with the concept of India and his subsequent actions e.g sabotage of the cabinet mission plan proved his hindu nationalist credentials beyond reasonable doubt. The only difference between him and patel is that nehru was much more suave.As to the economic ideas, i have to disagree. There are no right or wrong economics. Economics is a mean to an end and not an end itself. End will justify the economic policies in turn. One has to grant Nehru his deep compassion for Indian masses, their grinding poverty perhaps touched him so deeply that he choose socialism over capitalism for his country. Come to think of it he had more to loose from socialism after all he was a scion of a very wealthy Hindu family. His debt to capitalism was much higher than Patel and others and yet he choose an idealogy that he thought will benefit the most. That takes a lot of courage and one must grant Nehru that.
The thing is Mujamdar Sb that thinking men are always in short supply:) and sometimes mobs can put those thinking men under seige! As long as Akhand Bahart lives ,in what ever form,within the masses memory there always will be a threat to thinking Hindoos.
Sa’ad Abbasi : Yasser,that was once again a juvenile reaction.
And you say you are not a natural agent, you couldn’t come up with something from your own culture and history or literature to make a point. You had to borrow from a foriegn culture.A bit of advice; stop writing you still have miles to go before you can actually write!

Majumdar : Abbasi sahib,sabotage of the cabinet mission plan
That was the only sensible thing that JLN ever did in his life.One has to grant Nehru his deep compassion for Indian masses, their grinding poverty perhaps touched him so deeply.The grinding poverty touched him so deeply that he decided to keep the Indian poor people in poverty!!!
That takes a lot of courage
We dont need that kind of tomfoolery in ours. But if you enjoy this kind of courage you can take all our commies into your country and you can export YLH to us in return. I will be very happy with that exchange.
As long as Akhand Bahart lives ,in what ever form,within the masses memory there always will be a threat to thinking Hindoos.The people who believe in Akhand Bharat – the ones who carry out pogroms of minorities in India and their counterparts who indulge in suicide bombing in Pak- wud always be a threat to thinking people (Hindoo/Muslim, Indian, Paki) all over the subcontinent. Thank God, we agree on at least one thing
Sa’ad Abbasi : Mujamdar Sb,You can have all the YLHs that we have and we will be happy to have all those dedicated men and women that you refer to as communies and can you also throw in madhuri dixit along?:)
Yasser :Majumdar,The correction: The total population of the subcontinent is no less than 1.45 billion at the least.
“The people who believe in Akhand Bharat – the ones who carry out pogroms of minorities in India and their counterparts who indulge in suicide bombing in Pak- wud always be a threat to thinking people (Hindoo/Muslim, Indian, Paki) all over the subcontinent. Thank God, we agree on at least one thing”
Well said.
Abbasi,
“Yea I saw that a long time ago, only YLH and the sorts think hat Pakistan was won from the Hindoos and the British:)”
Yaar you and your English comprehension skills. Those who have read my articles kno that I have always ascribed to the Ayesha Jalal version of history. My point has always been that Pakistan was necessitated by the Nehru wrecking the Cabinet Mission Plan. I don’t think 27% deeply divided and ignorant multitude of Muslims could have achieved anything except been a constant roadblock to the progress of India as well…
Having their own nation states i.e. Pakistan and Bangladesh has forced a great majority of these people to come to terms with things like the rigors of running a nation state. In doing ofcourse Muslims -being backward as they are- made a monumental mess of things… but these are still birth pangs. In the final assessment …. Pakistan helped both Hindus and Muslims…. but Muslims especially because many of the indigenous Pakistani Muslims would still be employed in agriculture or martial professions … and the region that is now Pakistan would be a raw-material producing backwater of a United India. Only an idiot would deny the obvious impact of this.
History when written impartially will testify to the fact that partition was a mutually beneficial solution and could have been triply so had the whole Kashmir mess not happened.
Majumdar : Yasser, Pakistan helped both Hindus and Muslims
Yes. Things could have been better had:
JLN not imposed his socialist BS on the hapless Indian masses. Had only the Patel-Rajaji duo gained power…..
LAK and his successors not begun the turn towards militarism and religious exclusivism. If only MAJ (pbuh) had lived a bit longer….
Majumdar : Yasser mian, The total population of the subcontinent is no less than 1.45 billion at the least. Actually, I was referring to 2001 Census data when pop wud have been closer to 1.3 b.
Sa’ad Abbasi : Yasser, Unlike you English is a foriegn language to me.
Regarding your views on 27% ignorant Muslims. There is no such thing in electoral politics. just becuase a man cannot read or write does not mean he is utterly bereft of wisdom. When I was posted in frontier we had this MP from Kohistan, A tall well built fellow with red hairs and and a glowing red face and he use to stink like a sheep. We use to assess his arrival from the smell. He couldn’t read or write, barely was able to make a signature. but once he sat down to discuss issues facing his constituency and the demands that he had for his illaqa and people, one was surprised at his grasp of the issues both political and development related. And by your standard he was an ignorant, backward fool. Wisdom and eduaction dont go hand in hand they can exist independently. After all Pakistan was an idea that ignited the imagnation of these very ignorant fools and your Jinnahs and Bhuttos were compelled to wrap their politics in Islamic terminologies.
What you refer to as benefits appear to me as losses, a matter of prespectives. You view it from the petty bourgeoisie prespective. I view it from a Muslim nationalist’s prespective. Where you will see GDPs I will see a nation divided and casterated,And history my friend will never be impartial it always be tinted with the prespective of those who write it.
The Debate goes on and the participaters have even abused each other,words like Maqqads(assholes in arabic) are used…but It requires another decades to ressolve….or who knows if there is more time to ressolve the issue As Altaf Hussain has reffered NATO is monitoring the situation at Pakistan,security threats,political and economic crisis,they have planned for here keeping in mind the current geographical status or beyond it…..God bless us

For Detailed References visit

http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:iWBSy1YDbNoJ:www.iias.nl/nl/49/IIAS_NL49_03.pdf+history+writing+in+Pakistan&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&client=opera

Romila Thapar is professor emeritus of History at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, and one of the world’s foremost experts of ancient Indian history. Her seminal work, “History of India, Vol.1” has been in print ever since it was first published in 1966. Dr. Thapar, who believes in interpreting ancient Indian texts in the light of new insights, has taught at top institutions including Oxford University, Cornell, the College de France in Paris, and the University of London. She has been involved in her country’s debates about historical truth, political identity and social reform.

You have strongly opposed the attempt to use history in support of an ideology of religious nationalism by the right-wing Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which was in power from 1998 to 2004. There was an attempt at the time to rewrite Indian textbooks. How does the rewriting of history to endorse recent political ideology affect human rights?

Let me clarify here that my fight was against the BJP- led government and the Hindutva view of Indian history, and not against other governments in India. The Hindutva lobby that insisted on the changes in Indian textbooks endorses a Hindu right-wing ultra-nationalism – often described as Hindu fundamentalism – and is trying to propagate a revisionist history in classrooms and political discourse. The parent organization in India, known as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), has a distinctly religious fundamentalist political agenda. The RSS and its political arm, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), gained power defeating moderate secular Indians by exploiting Hindu nationalist sentiments. The RSS has been involved in several high-profile incidents of religiously motivated violence over the last twenty years.

The controversy on my work involved some textbooks I had written for middle schools, where I had talked about the lives of Aryans as we knew it from the Vedic texts. I had mentioned, for instance, that the early Indians ate beef – the references in the Vedas are clear, and there is archaeological evidence for this. The Hindu right wing extolled the Aryans as the great model society for ancient India, and were opposed to any criticism of them. When they objected to this and other statements of mine, I provided evidence from the texts as proof. But they insisted that children should not be told that beef was eaten in early times. My reaction was that it was historically more correct to explain to school children why in early times beef was eaten, and why later a prohibition was introduced.

Though the attack on me was vicious, I was not the only historian attacked. There were about six of us, who had authored the earlier textbooks, and others who spoke up against the changes in school curriculum and textbooks by the (then) government, made without consulting educational bodies that would normally have been consulted. The government then described us as being anti-Hindu, and therefore anti-Indian, and therefore anti-patriotic, and therefore, traitors.

The deletion of passages from our books and the ban on any discussion of the deleted passages raised a number of issues of various kinds pertaining to the rights of individuals and the ethics of government institutions. There was also a virulent protest by some Indians living in the United States when the US Library of Congress appointed you as the first Kluge Chair in Countries and Cultures of the South in 2004. What became of these protests and were textbooks revised when the Congress government replaced the Bharatiya Janata Party in New Delhi?

The Library of Congress rejected without any hesitation the demand from the Hindutva lobby, particularly Indians living in the United States, to reverse my appointment, therefore the demand was slowly silenced. The abuse online and through e-mails continued unabated.

When the Congress reclaimed power in 2004, it decided to do away with all the previous textbooks, written by us as far back as the 1960s and 70s, as well as those produced by the BJP government just prior to its fall. A new set of books was commissioned, which are now in use. They are different from the ones we wrote and reflect some of the new interests in history as a discipline, and do not push a Hindutva hard line.

The worrying thing is, what will happen if the Bharatiya Janata Party returns to power in the next election, which will be held within 12 months? Will they change the textbooks again? I worry for the school children who have to be examined in the subject and depend on textbooks.

Once we accept one religious group’s agenda and beliefs to be taught in the public schools, it opens the door for every other group to do the same thing. As educators, we have to make a distinction between history on the one hand, which involves questioning existing knowledge about the past where necessary, and faith on the other hand, where even myths are acceptable. The two have to be kept separate. The first is the domain of the historian and the second that of the priest. On a wider international level, many human rights atrocities in recent years have sought to draw legitimacy from history, using the pretext of setting right the wrongs of the past. How can this be avoided? romila03_250.jpg

Political parties today draw heavily on ideology and also on history, because a lot of the current politics is determined by imagined identities – either imagined racial identities, or imagined religious identities, or whatever the identities may be, there is a construction of identities. They are projected back into the past, but in effect really arise out of concerns of the present. And these imagined identities that go into the making of political ideologies are very likely to grapple with history. The grappling also takes the form of creating the notion of what is believed to be a national culture, THE national culture. This is never questioned, because if you question it, you become a traitor to the nation. And it is usually a single, carefully selected strand from the broader culture which is drawn out and exaggerated, and this facilitates the potential exclusion of some citizens on the basis of either religion or race or language or whatever identity is conveniently within reach. This is very harmful to issues of human rights, because it gives priority to certain groups and their cultures over others.

But isn’t it a dangerous notion, for those in power to believe they can set right the wrongs of the past?

This is a commonly made claim. We have an example, in the Indian case, where a Hindu political faction led by BJP leaders destroyed the (16th century) Babri Masjid at Ayodhya (in Northern India) in 1992, and claimed that they were avenging Mahmud of Ghazni’s attack on Somnath (a Hindu temple) and thereby setting right this wrong of the past.

First of all, did it have to take a thousand years before this act (of Ghazni) was avenged if indeed the idea was to avenge it? More important, how did it set right the wrongs of the past? What was the result of the destruction of the Babri Masjid? It made not the slightest difference to our reading of the past. What it did was that it resulted in a massacre of Muslims in (the Western Indian state of) Gujarat, and since then, a continued series of bomb explosions in the major cities of the country. So what is argued as setting right the wrongs of the past cannot be set right in this fashion. And in any case, it’s a rather silly argument, because the past is that which has happened. It cannot be changed, and therefore, it’s much more important to set right the wrongs of the present, rather than harping on what might have been the wrongs of the past.